SIR, Keele University’s somewhat triumphalist claim that the removal of MOD’s seismic restrictions on windfarms will allow a further 1.6 GW of wind-power generation in the Borders concerns me.

As I understand their remit, Keele were employed to calculate the acceptable level of seismic activity for the Eskdalemuir nuclear monitoring station. I did not know that they commented on windfarm policies. A cynic might conclude that they were encouraged by the Scottish Government to find justification for opening up the Borders to more wind generation, and that they have managed to do so.

What this means in practice is that the Borders will become the generating hub of Scotland, providing power north to the Midland belt and south to England. Strategically, that might make sense: the population is low, the topography well-suited to gathering wind, and the location would reduce the costs of transport of power. If that is the case, then the Scottish Government is effectively sacrificing the Borders to its policies for renewable energy.

And if that is the case, the time has come perhaps for a proper debate about the policy which, so far, has resulted in a rash of landscape-shattering developments all over the area, without any apparent strategic direction. That policy is driven by three factors: willing landowners, complicit developers and subsidy. Underpinning the whole thing is the authorities’ assessment of the quality of the Borders landscape.

The failure to assess landscape other than parochially within the Borders ignores its proper place as one of the most beautiful and unspoiled regions within the UK. This and the reluctance to designate more than a few areas as SLAs (which carry no protection) or even NSAs or National Parks (which do), along with the even more bizarre refusal to include more than an acre or two as “Wild Land” means that we are sitting ducks in the Borders for development which is at best no more than 30 per cent efficient in generating electricity, and which even the Scottish Government (along with Mr Pickles) admits destroys landscapes.

Perhaps, as my wife suggested, windfarms should be concentrated into large units around the nation’s nuclear and coal power stations. Such concentration would reduce infrastructure costs, remove the need for subsidy, allow proper compensation to be paid to those affected, and prevent the further desecration of an internationally-renowned landscape. At the very least, the Scottish Government should come clean to the people of the Borders about their intentions for the area, and instigate a proper debate about the continuance of their policy on renewable generation.

I am, etc.

J E Pratt Cross House Mountain Cross West Linton